101 years ago, on November 7, 1917, workers and poor villagers came to power in Russia defeating exploitative bosses. This historical event which was known as the October Revolution due to the calendar used in Russia in those times is extremely critical for two reasons. First of all, it should be emphasized that the working people in revolt against inequalities rose up with the will to change the system. The right to get rid of the unfair and exploitative social system, in other words the right to a revolution, was exercised substantially for the first time with the October Revolution. The revolution eradicated the old system and paved the way for a classless and non-exploitative system. Thus over time, a country spanning a wide geography called The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics came to exist. This is the second reason behind the uniqueness of the October Revolution in the history of the humankind.

The collapse of Soviet Union due to internal and external factors in 1991, which aimed to build a completely classless, equal, free, fraternal and prosperous society, that is to say to build communism, does not mean that it is impossible to realize communism and that capitalism is a superior system. On the contrary, despite imperialist interventions and Nazi barbarism which had cost over 25 million Soviet citizens’ lives during Second World War, Soviet Union not only eradicated hunger, poverty, unemployment and injustice but also thanks to industrialism based on central planning, it transformed itself into a super power. Besides achieving huge successes in science, it also provided an environment for unique creative productivity in the cultural-artistic field. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the Russian Federation and in old Soviet Union Republics, tens of millions of people suffered from unemployment, poverty, corruption, homelessness and social decay. Average life expectancy was shortened and many gains of working class were destroyed.

Today apart from a few exceptions, capitalism is in power all around the world. In order to destroy these exceptions, imperialism keeps using every kind of military, political and economic means. Cuba, for many years despite the blockade placed by US, did not give up from socialism option. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is forced to live with military intervention threats of US. Behind the intolerance against these two countries lays the effort to eradicate the idea of finding any alternatives to this exploitative system.

It is possible and necessary to defeat capitalism. It is compulsory to destroy a system which can not offer anything but crisis and wars, which forces billions of people to experience hunger and poverty and which is based on inequality itself. The communism is the only way to overcome capitalism. The yearning for classless and non-exploitative society can be realized only after having ended the domination of parasite class that gets rich by exploiting others.

TURKISH REPUBLIC WAS FOUNDED BY REVOLUTION AND WAS LIQUIDATED BY COUNTER-REVOLUTION

1917 Revolution was the forerunner of a revolutionary wave which embraced the whole world. Notably in Europe and in all capitalist countries, large masses of people were revolting against war, hunger and injustice; ruling classes were being overthrown, the flag of liberty and equality was being raised everywhere. The National Liberation Struggle which started in 1919 in Anatolia was shaped by this wave after Ottoman Empire was divided up between victorious imperialist countries following the First World War. This struggle waged under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, thanks to its determined stance against imperialist occupation and obsolete Ottoman institutions became a significant part of the revolutionary front. Young Soviet State got in contact rapidly with the struggle in Anatolia, gave military and financial support, advocated for its rights in the international arena. National power in Ankara showed respect to Soviet Union’s interests and developed a friendly relationship.

After the declaration of the Republic on October 29 of 1923, the Anatolian resistance movement became a ruling class project and thus it entered into the process of capitalization rapidly in accordance with the class character of its leadership. Although the Turkish Republic was relatively independent politically and economically at the beginning, after a while it shared the inevitable end of all bourgeois revolutions as the reactionary character of its capitalist class became more and more dominant. As the bourgeoisie got stronger, the oppression towards the poorly organized working class increased while economical and political relations with the imperialist system developed. Besides, a hostile attitude towards the Soviet Union took shape. Weakening the founding principles of Republic such as independence, secularism, statism, populism was not a matter of any personal preference but of the capitalist class itself. After a certain point, the system in place completely got rid of all these principles which were already disgraced by Americanist, reactionist and anti-people policies. Imperialist countries and the capitalist class of Turkey went into partnership with AKP. The result is obvious. The Turkish Republic was founded by a revolution and is defeated by a counter-revolution.

The Republic is liquidated. This liquidation manifests itself not only through complete eradication of the principles of republic that were debased over time but also by not having any actors within the system who might fight to regain even a small part of these principles. Therefore within the system, ending AKP authority would not mean returning to the 1923 soul. In other words, regarding the capitalist system of Turkey, AKP does not have any alternative economically or politically.

Until now what prevented AKP from founding its new regime instead of the Republic it demolished is not the dynamics within the system or inner balances of system politics but instead the social resistance which is against AKP’s “new Turkey” design and which is quite unlikely to be liquidated in the near future or medium term. AKP can not transform the authority which it gets through political platform into a social hegemony. Therefore AKP’s new Turkey can not stabilize as a whole. However if the aforementioned resistance can not be converted into an energy for an uprising with a working class and revolutionary character, in the long run it will fade or will become part of AKP’s legalization process through small changes and will disappear after having helped the solution regarding the tension between political and social platforms within the system.

AKP is establishing the processes of its own state. Although some underestimate these processes, simply calling it “the palace”, it meets the current needs of capitalists and is not out of date but pretty modern in terms of its “practicalness”. Features which are rightly associated with AKP such as clumsiness, illiteracy, ignorance mostly mislead people. After a point it becomes meaningless to say that AKP does not have any wisdom, depth or quality that Turkish bourgeoisie has itself. Although AKP has lost many members, over time it filled the gap using different other resources available to the capitalist class. Within this regard the gap between Turkish bourgeoisie’s historic experience and those of AKP’s decreased considerably. Those who can ascribe AKP to the Turkish capitalism are sycophants of capital and they can not understand the reasons behind the decay of the developed capitalist countries which are represented by Trump, May, Macron and Merkel. Bourgeoisie can not contribute to humankind anymore. That was long time ago. Today, the capitalist class can neither perform its destructive mission with a “developed” cadre nor can develop that cadre from within its own ranks. Those who get surprised by vulgarity witnessed in Turkey today should know that the reason behind this is the system of exploitation.

Capitalism can not be healed anywhere. Wherever market rules are in existence, poverty, unemployment and inequality are inevitable. Crises and wars are the realities of capitalism. A capitalism without any crises or wars is not possible. Capitalism has besieged Turkey for many years similarly. Although large masses in the society are sensitive regarding facts such as secularism, independence and sovereignty which were the products of the revolutionary transformations of 1920’s, those principles can not survive in this system anymore. On the anniversary of the October Revolution the paths of those who seek for a system without exploitation of man by man and those who care about secularism, independence, sovereignty are intersecting. Turkey is searching for its revolution in the pursuit of equality and independence.

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO THE ECONOMY POLICIES OF THE AKP GOVERNMENT IN THIS SOCIAL ORDER

The argument that the AKP had radically changed the direction of Turkey's economy and that the country has been plundered since then should be approached with caution. Coming to power following the elections in November 2002, the AKP pursued the economic policies implemented by the governments preceding itself. The difference is that the AKP had some additional opportunities enabling it to overcome political, legal and social obstacles to the implementation of these policies. That was the main reason of the national and international support for a recently founded political party. Just as the 1980 fascist coup played a huge role in overcoming the difficulties regarding the implementation of the decisions of January 24 1980, the AKP also played a similar role and set to work more keenly than any other political party to realize the demands of the Turkish bourgeoisie.

In terms of capitalism in Turkey, the essence of the period immediately after the 1995 customs union agreement was the deepening of the integration with the international capital. This became more evident with the IMF program generally called "Derviş program" following the economic crisis in 2001. The economy policies of that period can be summarized as privatizations in the most general sense (both the sales of public assets and opening state controlled areas to private sector), regulations that encouraged international trade and deepening of Turkey's external dependency by means of the increases in foreign debts, structuring the industrial production of Turkey based on durable goods according to the international division of labor, expanding the reserve army of labor by making use of the great internal wave of migration caused by the collapse of the agriculture due to the demands of the food monopolies, reducing the costs of labor force by means of incentives for increases in debts and legal regulations that erased the gains of the working class.

The most important result of this period in which marketisation in general increased and policies complementing one another were implemented was the increase in proletarianization and impoverishment. Apart from the decline in average real wages, real increases occurred in all prices except for the price of the labor force despite low inflation and interest rates. Workers started to get lesser share from the social value they created as external financing increased and was transferred from public sector to the private, mainly to banks. This also resulted in higher value transfer to capital, mainly to the international capital and finance monopolies.

During this whole period, the AKP rule assumed responsibility to develop some additional regulations and mechanisms to solve some accumulated problems. When we consider the rule of the AKP for 16 years, we can neither talk about an economic policy based on AKP's preferences nor an alternative policy set of the social order. The very strong consensus of the capital in terms of the economic policies is the most important factor that makes AKP's rule the most pro-market, pro-capitalist and collaborator political power in the history of Turkish capitalism regardless of the tendencies of Turkish capitalism.

The arguments that the AKP implemented different economic policies in different periods and that the political power changed direction after gaining strength are far from the reality. The period between 2002-2007 was the most successful period as the crisis of 2001 was used as a leverage coupled with suitable international conditions like the existence of "abundant capital". However, it is obvious that diverse economic policies were not implemented during the long period starting from 1995-96 till the last crisis appeared in May 2018. There had been no essential change in the direction although some additional regulations were needed at some intervals mainly like the crisis of 2008.

With the explicit guidance of the imperialist centers mainly the EU/Germany, an array of irreversible steps were taken regarding the structure of Turkish economy during the rule of the AKP. Turkish capitalism totally gave up some assertions despite sectoral diversification, quantitative capacity increase, glamorous growth in production and consumption rates. Dependency on importation was preferred in technology and capital intensive sectors and Turkey became the open market for the Europe in various main sectors like iron and steel and chemistry. Primary products, mainly the products of heavy industry like iron-steel and chemistry that are called "intermediate goods", comprise the biggest part in dependency on importation. Turkey is unable to produce stainless steel; it imports and slices it. The same is also true for sectors like shoes and paper production, that are more easily produced and Turkey used to have almost a hundred percent domestic production in the past. The industrial production of Turkey was transformed in line with importation dependency after public enterprises like Tüpraş, Petkim, Erdemir, Seydişehir Aluminium and Seka factories in key sectors were privatized with the directions of the international capital. This transformation lies at the basis of the economic crisis today.

There is a strong relation between increasing dependency on importation in production and consumption and foreign debts. International capital and mainly the energy, finance and technology monopolies are behind AKP's "policy based on concrete material", a faulty description in terms of its political consequences. A huge amount of money was transferred to the international capital apart from the pro-AKP contractors by means of energy equipment, medical devices, climatization systems and most importantly construction materials (iron-steel, cement) for the construction works of airport, shopping malls, city hospitals and double ways. The "road map" of the energy sector in Turkey was determined by the World Bank. The public-private collaboration model in Turkey, for which they boast of having the highest number of applications in the world, was also the invention and imposition of the international finance monopolies. Turkish capitalism completely moved away from making investment planning considering "national scale" and creating resources for that, and instead started to adapt ready-made packages of the international capital that would deepen Turkey's dependency to foreign sources.

Another important channel that makes the production in Turkey dependent on importation is exportation. In sectors like automotive and home appliances that have significant share in Turkey's exportation imported content is high. There is also no possibility to decrease importation and increase production given the existing production structure.

It is very artificial to try to describe the existing process, in which the international capital has further benefited from the opportunities presented by Turkey as a market and has accomplished to increase particularly the exploitation of a qualified workforce, with a single model on the basis of such titles as “construction-based growth”, “domestic demand-based growth”, and “exportation-based growth”. Such steps as the liquidation of public assets, the decrease of the state’s share on the economy and the rapid integration with the international capital have also paved the way for different segments of capital, thus catalyzing the emergence of the above-mentioned “consensus”. The tendencies of Turkish capitalism, as well as its level of development and the penetration of international capital, have all made it possible to carry out the interrelated processes at the same time.

The level of value transferred from the workers to capital has greatly increased because of accelerated household indebtedness, extra mechanisms other than consumer credits that enhance the indebtedness, the policies and developments that support rapid urbanization, the acceleration of marketization with the transfer of energy, health and education services to the private sector in addition to the sale of public entities and assets. The plundering of country’s resources and the destruction of nature cannot be regarded independently from the destruction, including the escalating foreign-source dependence and the workforce, to which the productive forces have been exposed. The whole of the capitalist class, mainly the big capital groups, has become by far the winner of a series of policies that the pro-establishment opposition has narrowed to the AKP rule and the pro-government media.

When the expansion of capital is examined, it seems that we are going through a process in which the biggest capital groups have grown rapidly and uninterruptedly and some fields have also been opened to the new groups, rather than a process in which the “pro-government capital” or the “rentier capital” grew with the policies of AKP while the “traditional capital” or the “productive capital” decreased. The “industrial capital”, more apparently the automotive sector, has taken advantage of increasing dependency on imports, the financialization, and the policies of transportation and urbanization. The incredible increase in the geographical concentration of capital as a result of the transportation and urban policies has also stemmed from the decisions of the capital that aim to cut corners regarding keeping labor costs at minimum, access to markets and distribution channels. To grasp the attack on the labor in all its dimensions, it is important to note that the present period is marked not only by the transfer of the accumulated value of the workers but also by an incredible increase in productivity with the possible minimum investment. Turkish capitalism achieved extra possibilities of expansion with the help of the change in the economic structure and in its sectoral distribution.

The present impasse that is the continuation of developments like the privatization of public enterprises in key industries, leaving the decision taking role fully to the private sector regarding investment choices and decisions, transformation of the state as the practitioner of regulations that attack the labor and change from public borrowing to finance borrowing is totally the product of Turkish capitalism. What is happening in Turkey today is the unavoidable consequence of the capital's law of motion, not the result of poor management of the state on behalf of the capital or faulty interventions of the political power to the workings of the capitalism.

As the Turkish capitalism experienced the longest period without any crisis in its history, the country went through a process in which both capital expanded quantitatively and the monopolization increased. It is apparent that such a process would provide any capitalist government with important financial opportunities and extra instruments, and create new pro-government capitalists. Of course, the AKP carelessly used some opportunities that could not be underestimated, thus created its own capitalists. However, it is impossible to describe the Turkish capitalism or any other country, where similar situations are observed overtly or covertly, as "distorted capitalism" or "anomaly" based on those opportunities.

In the case of Turkish capitalism, the traditional capital groups, which unquestionably had conflicts with the government from time to time, have grown more than the capitalists who emerged or flourished by means of political favoritism under the rule of AKP government. The profits of Koç Group through Tüpraş [Turkey's oil refinery], of Sabancı Group through privatizations in energy, or the creation of big profits for the traditional capital by means of encouraged consumption of housing, automotive and domestic appliances through heavy indebtedness, or the fact that Şişecam [Turkey's glassware company] has become one of the fastest-growing capital groups do not represent capitalism's "normal" state, while the profits of contractors through the third airport in Istanbul, bridges and roads do not represent capitalism's "abnormal" state. Capitalism is an order based on exploitation; and in the case of Turkish capitalism, the country has witnessed a huge process of plunder as the opportunities of exploitation extremely increased by taking the advantage of the working class' unorganized conditions. The internal links of the mechanism of plunder is stronger than it is demonstrated. As the surplus obtained from the working class increased through different mechanisms, the public assets, which represent the accumulated values, were notoriously offered to the capital.

The crises that are "intrinsically" generated by capitalism are blockages within the processes of capital accumulation, the actions of capitalists greedy for bigger profits eventually lead to crises. In the simplest manner, the contradiction between the private property of means of production and the social characteristics of productive forces poses an obstacle before the unrestricted expansion of capital under the conditions of capitalism. A capitalism without crises is impossible, while it is theoretically possible to take steps that accelerate the crises or to take some measures against the crises. As the unavoidable consequence of the system, the crises are not generated by the capitalists individually; similarly, they cannot be prevented by the rulers of the system, including the bosses. However, the initial reflex of the rulers of the system, the bosses during crises would be to put the burden of the results of the crisis on the shoulders of the working class and laborers. They try to prevent the fall of the rates of profit during crises and the depreciation of capital by increasing the exploitation while decreasing the workers' incomes in total by means of layoffs, reductions in wages, cuts in workers' acquired rights, reductions in public spending and increases in indirect taxes. They attempt to portray the crisis like a "natural disaster" that everyone should pay their own shares or like an accident that emerge as a result of the mistakes of a handful untalented people, and the price of which "all the society" should assume. The biggest advantage of the social order during crisis periods, when the organized attack of the capitalist class and its representatives reach its peak, is the unorganized conditions of the working class.

Today, the whole sections of capital and the rule of AKP are taking joint steps. By taking advantage of the unorganized conditions of the working class, they are trying to minimize the damage of capital during crisis. The fact that the capital has a more integrated structure in comparison to the past is one of the dimensions this attempt. They are afraid of the fact that the uncontrolled bankruptcies may become much more influential in comparison to their forecasts and accounts. One of the important factors that make the crisis "manageable" is the existence of international actors, including the US investment funds and the European banks, that could be affected, directly or indirectly, by bankruptcies. More importantly, however, the working class is not organized. The capitalist order has a field of maneuver in order to carry out "crisis engineering", and to develop/implement sophisticated bailout plans. They aim to transfer the debts on to the public sector and the workers by means of partially writing off or delaying the debts of capital with a regulation under the name of "restructuring the financial debts".

The main features of the present crisis of Turkish capitalism can be listed as that the foreign financing which is not only indispensable in terms of foreign debt stock rollover but also in terms of the main operation of the economy has got into a tough situation, that a debt crisis which can have chain results notably for the banks and big capital groups seems to be very close, that the economy is dependent on importation on a high level and that production capacity for exportation is not sufficient. All the sections of the capitalists and notably the big capitalist groups are unable to pay their debts, mainly their foreign debts in foreign currency. The difficulty of rolling over debt burden due to the international developments resulted in an increase in exchange rates and the capitalists whose incomes were partially dependent on Turkish currency had more difficulty in paying their debts. Hiking interest rates to prevent increase of exchange rates and outflow of foreign currency before a sharp fall in foreign or domestic demand occurred caused a very fast increase in inflation rates. The fact that the capitalists decreased production before demands fell due to the fast increase in costs also influenced increases in production costs and therefore prices. The increases in exchange, interest and inflation caused real decreases in the incomes of the workers, in their purchasing power and thus deceleration of domestic demand. Some "pro-system" measures like the debt payment of the capitalists from their wealth, continuing production by taking the risk of lower profit rates and suspension of foreign debt payments quickly caused laying the burden of the crisis on the shoulders of the working class.

The capitalist class feels assured that the international capital, mainly the European capital will never take the risk of giving up investments in Turkey. Even though this idea may be true in certain aspects, there is no strong international model that can help overcoming the crisis dynamics in Turkey considering the multi-dimensional crisis of the imperialist system. Turkish capitalism has to keep opening new profitable areas to the international capital by using public resources so that the existing capitalist structure can be maintained in Turkey. However, an international capital direction that can cause a rebound in export that has been swaying in the same band since 2012.

There is no possibility of an alternative economic policy, a new economic model arising under the conditions of capitalism despite discourses of both the political power and the opposition as an alternative like "increasing technological content of production", "technological transformation", "production with high added value." Turkey's level of dependency to the international capital makes it impossible to take necessary steps for such an axis change. International balances and relations with the European capital do not as well allow for a change based on meeting domestic demands and creating new markets.

Two most important results of the crisis are the reorganization of the capital despite extended over time and the increase in public debt. The first one will result in capital ownership change and increased monopolization followed by the closing down of some enterprises and liquidation of some fields of activities. Temporary expropriations are possible in sectors like finance notably the banking, the energy and some other sectors with high export dependency. The results of this period will have more powerful consequences than the 2001 crisis. The level of foreign dependency in economy which has reached an incomparable level than the previous period causes a higher impoverishment than the calculated results of the inflation or exchange rate increase. The erosion of real wages is to be between the 10-15 percent range even considering only the inflation. The decline in real wages due to exchange rate increases and inflation will not be enough for the capitalist class and they will need more so that the wreckage falls on the workers. Layoffs, cutting back some rights except for minimum wages, increases in work times, increases in illicit works and using public assets more for the benefit of the capital.

The growth rate of 2,3 percent envisaged for 2019 means economic contraction per se. The expectation of increase in unemployment rates and other predictions confirm this. Although they are trying to avoid collective lay off processes, a noteworthy increase especially in the unemployment rate of well-educated workers between the ages 30-40 seems quite likely. One of the most effective ways of decreasing real wages under crisis conditions is cutting down severance pays. The capitalists will aim to employ inexperienced workers instead of the ones with 10-15 years of work experience.

The new economic program, the budget of 2019 and some other regulations show that the public foreign debt will increase, the treasury, public banks and public enterprises will get into more debt to rollover debts of the capitalists. The share to be allocated from the public revenue to the capitalists is also to increase as announced previously. They are planning to open public resources and revenues to the use of the capitalists more by plundering unemployment insurance fund more and imposing individual pension system.

All the precautions taken due to the crisis aim to transfer resources of the people to the capitalists directly or indirectly. The argument that the crisis is the result of wrong or unsuccessful policies of the AKP government serves to mask this truth. No actor other than the Communist Party of Turkey state that the economic policies of the AKP as a whole bears indispensable properties for the capitalists both before and during the crisis. Even the ones who consider themselves as the proponents of the leftist politics become part of those who lobby to direct the capitalist class or the international powers against the AKP. The capitalists and the AKP become the winner of this situation. The capitalists act as if they are the victims of the economic policies from which they benefited for 16 years while the AKP makes use of the "foreign powers" discourse by referring to these lobbying acts. The Communist Party of Turkey will never let the workers have hopes of help from the imperialist countries and the capitalist classes; it will expose the victimization trick of bosses and insistently underline that the policies of the AKP do not stem from their lack of competence but from the necessity of feeding the greed of the capitalists. This is the significance of the "WE WILL BREATHE DOWN BOSSES' NECK" campaign.

FOREIGN POLICY: GETTING USED TO A PATH WITHOUT A STRATEGY

Today, the major hallmark of the AKP’s foreign policy is that it is not based on an apparent strategy. It would be misleading to argue that lack of an apparent strategy has been a perpetual characteristic throughout the 16 years of AKP government; this is a situation that rather has emerged in the last couple of years. In addition to the peculiarities of the transformation that Turkish capitalism has undergone during AKP governments, the exacerbation of the multifaceted crisis of imperialism also played a key part in the emergence of this situation. However, this does not imply that the AKP is completely being drifted under the influence of external factors. Having grasped that the international order would not reach some kind of “balance” or the hegemonic problem of the imperialist system would not be resolved in the near future, the AKP has been preferring a fluctuating foreign policy practice to a strategy whose means and aims are well-determined in this uncertain environment, and has become gradually versed in taking casual positions.

In its initial years in government, instead of falling afoul with conventional tendencies of Turkish capitalism in foreign policy, Justice and Development Party (AKP) resorted to the propaganda that it would represent these tendencies in the best possible way. Steps taken in relation to several crucial questions such as the Kurdish issue or Cyprus had been associated with the mentioned claim of the ruling party, and the alliance with liberalism and the Gülen sect had played a facilitating role within the scope of orientations such as European Union membership. The bourgeois government has blended the conventional orientations of Turkish capitalism with Islamist ideology, while trying to transform Turkish society in this direction and attempting to support its endeavor with foreign policy maneuvers. The entire process in which Turkish capitalism possessed a strategic orientation had been executed in compliance with the interests of Western imperialism and with their explicit support.

The path taken by Turkish capitalism under the support and guidance of imperialism also necessitated Turkey to become more assertive within the imperialist system. Based on the notion to strengthen Turkey’s position within the NATO alliance by making political Islam an instrument of foreign policy, this strategy forced the AKP to assume more initiative in international politics. In this framework, the AKP government had intensified its attempts towards the Middle East as of 2009, and particularly perceived the mass protests that started in the Arab world in 2011 as a golden opportunity to carry its “neo-Ottomanist” design, intellectual origins of which dates back to early 1990s, into effect.

One might as well say that neo-Ottomanism was not compatible with the historical and social dynamics of Turkey or the Middle East back then. Yet, it would be misleading to claim that neo-Ottomanism did not furnish the AKP government with a strategic orientation. Even though reinforcing the steps taken through the integration of the Gülen sect into the state apparatus with an alliance formed with influential actors of political Islam in international politics such as the Muslim Brotherhood, or attempting to build a political and ideological hegemony in the region based on these alliances, was never a realistic policy option, it provided a direction to the AKP government. Once again, the pursued direction and the political interests and pursuits of imperialism coincided in the initial years of the imperialist intervention carried out under the rubric of “Arab Spring”.

Hence, in the early 2010s, the AKP appended neo-Ottomanism to the conventional tendencies of Turkish capitalism such as EU membership, allegiance to the NATO, etc. Developments that occurred thereafter in Turkey and the Arab world, especially in Syria, messed up the plans of both the AKP and imperialist forces. As neo-Ottomanism hit the wall both inside the country and abroad, the AKP government lost its strategic direction. The fall of Muslim Brotherhood from political power in Tunisia, the drift of Libya into a state of chaos, the toppling down of Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt with a coup that also had popular support, and last but not least, the failure of Islamist militants in Syria were the main regional causes of this downfall. The other crucial factors that failed neo-Ottomanism were the break-off of the alliance with liberals and the Gülen sect, and the intense resistance of large sections of Turkish society to the Islamist transformation imposed.

Having insisted on the neo-Ottomanist strategy for a brief period thereafter, the AKP government was forced to accept that the price of insisting on this dismal strategy would be too steep. It is not that the Islamist party withdrew all of its claims and revert back to the strategy of early 2000s, which was simply impossible. The AKP did not terminate its support to the Muslim Brotherhood or the jihadist mercenaries in Syria, but it had to accept that a hegemonic strategy based on such elements would not succeed. In other words, the neo-Ottomanist strategy collapsed as a result of both internal and external factors.

Roughly speaking, since 2015 and 2016, the AKP government does not have an apparent strategy in foreign policy. The ruling party substituted such a quest with tactical steps designed to exploit the cracks that occur as a result of sharpening rivalries between imperialist powers. Rather than being based on some degree of coherence, these steps are determined by temporary stances taken on the basis of sporadic requirements and opportunities. In brief, among the main sources of the lack of a strategy in Turkish foreign policy, one may address the collapse of the policy pursued by the AKP as a foreign policy strategy, the gaps and the lack of direction caused by the hegemonic crisis of imperialism, and the irreversible transformation of Turkish capitalism which has not and could not amend its weaknesses.

There are several important outcomes of the lack of a strategic orientation in foreign policy. One of its implications appears as “hyperactive” foreign policy. It is possible to say that Turkish foreign policy created a more active impression in a wider territory during the period when neo-Ottomanist strategy prevailed. However, it has later become evident that most of these steps were taken owing to the “services” provided by Gülen movement; hence could not reach any further depth than the organizational presence of this sect. The characteristics of “hyper-activism” that we see today is rather different: in recent years, Turkey has been attempting to assume certain roles in conflicts between imperialist blocks, forming its foreign policy on the basis of intrigues it is engaged in on this slippery ground. In this respect, hyperactive foreign policy takes the form of a proliferation in multilateral or bilateral relations that lack permanence and can readily substitute one another. In addition to this, “acute crises” break out frequently, which are again endeavored to be staved off or set back through certain maneuvers, or sometimes lead to rather comprehensive intrigues such as the one we see in the so-called Kashoggi case.

Therefore, as a whole, the foreign policy pursued by the AKP has come to a dead-end and lacks any apparent direction. Even though the AKP government has a say especially in the Middle East, it has great difficulties in launching fruitful initiatives since such act necessitates a coherent strategy. A government which constantly has to calibrate its distance between China-Russia and the Western axis depending on daily developments does not have the ability to set up a strong initiative.

On the other hand, the damage caused by “acute crises”, the frequent examples of which we have seen recently as well, should not be exaggerated. The fact that certain balances which prevailed in the past have lost their validity should not be ignored. For instance, arguments claiming that as long as Bashar al-Assad remains in power in Syria, Erdoğan cannot retain his position or vice versa, or that the Palestinian issue is the key to launching any meaningful initiative in the Middle East have lost their validity. From this point of view, even though the lack of elbow room for the AKP has gained a certain continuity in foreign policy, this does not inflict unbearable damages on the political power in Turkey as long as any of the dominant imperialist forces fail to change international balances permanently. On the other hand, the hegemonic crisis of imperialism creates objective conditions that clamp down on many countries like Turkey. It is safe to say that a range of countries such as Hungary, Poland, Pakistan, Malaysia, Brazil, etc. have been faced with difficulties based on the shifts in the tension of rivalry between imperialist powers. In other words, Turkey is not the sole example in this respect. However, it is one of the countries which tries to instrumentalize imperialist competition in its foreign policy in the most tumultuous and opportunistic way.

The question whether the AKP government may continue its course without having an apparent strategy in foreign policy or not cannot be answered independently from the question regarding how the crisis of imperialism would evolve in the near future. And what we may infer about how this crisis may evolve as of today is limited. Yet, we may point to certain marked tendencies, the most prominent of which is the quest to restore the Transatlantic alliance. Although it is true that Donald Trump’s actions towards the US-based imperialist hegemony have deepened the rifts between the two major elements of this alliance, it would be absurd to expect the collapse of NATO in the short-run. If, on the other hand, imperialist forces manage to gain ground in restoring the US hegemony, this would most probably lead into an alliance in which Europe exerts relatively greater authority. In this respect, the marked acceleration of military, commercial and political ties between the elements of the mentioned alliance other than the United States should not be overlooked. In fact, this process aims to reduce the frictions between Europe and the US which have been ongoing at least since the presidency of George W. Bush and to establish a new balance between the two major elements of the Transatlantic alliance. There is no fundamental objection to the leadership status of the US further to that, but the restorationist forces have been waiting for a political change in the dominant imperialist power instead.

The likelihood that the quest to restore NATO alliance to neutralize the disruptive influences of China and Russia on the current hierarchy, or even to bring these forces under control is negligible. Although it is apparent that if the Western alliance manages to consolidate itself, it will develop a strategy which seeks to have an edge over China and Russia by any means possible, the crisis of imperialism itself has rendered pushing these forces back beyond certain limits much more difficult. On the other hand, there is also a limit to the possible responses that China and Russia may give to a situation in which the Western alliance manages to consolidate itself. In fact, the main reason why both of these countries have been focusing on preventing the recovery of the mentioned alliance is these limits themselves.

Restoration of the Transatlantic alliance would neither bring a solution to the fundamental problems of imperialism, nor can ignore the dynamics that have been shaping under the conditions of current crisis. Even if the Transatlantic alliance succeeds in getting consolidated, its Russia and China “problem” will continue; the plight of millions of people who are condemned to poverty, whose countries are drifted into chaos will continue; religious, racist, nationalist policies, ideologies and organizations will retain their central position in the established order. Furthermore, the threat of war, which has gained significant pace in this process, will continue to increase, taking new forms as well. The threat that wars waged with nuclear weapons in addition to conventional arms to break out is much stronger today than it used to be in the 20th century. It is also possible that methods of cyber- warfare will take on much more devastating forms than the humanity has witnessed so far.

THE ACTUALITY OF REVOLUTION, THE ASSERTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TKP

The fact that Turkey has been ruled by the same party for 16 years does not mean that the Turkish capitalism has reached a balance although there has been a political stability in this respect for the pro-establishment politics. Throughout all this period, intra-establishment tensions have always existed, which sometimes extended up to coup attempts; and the people’s movement witnessed in 2013, the broadest one in the Republic of Turkey, which changed all the settings of Turkey even though it did not have any revolutionary characteristics. The unsteadiness that is sometimes witnessed in the alliance policies and ideological discourse of the AKP rule should not be explained only by AKP’s political pragmatism but also by the slippery ground beneath Turkish capitalism. Considering the structure of the region, it will be observed that Turkey is doomed to be one of the weak chains of the imperialist system from all sorts of evaluations whether based on the political, the economic or the ideological/cultural space. This truth lies at the center of the TKP’s strategic accounts.

The fact that Turkey is one of the weak links of the imperialist chain is a phenomenon going beyond the argument of the actuality of socialism. Socialism is an actual alternative for the whole imperialist system. Additionally, it is apparent again that imperialism is going through an increasingly fragile period in its centers where it appears as relatively strong. As it is true that this fragility triggers regional and more comprehensive wars, it should not be forgotten that it also brings about a decrease in the imperialist countries’ capabilities of intervention, thus leading to the accumulation of much more energy in the weak link of the chain.

For instance, the problems that cannot be resolved within the NATO alliance do not eliminate the alliance’s threats towards the working peoples, yet they make it difficult for its interventions to be productive. In this context, although the swing of Turkish foreign policy within the vacuums led by the intra-imperialist tensions paves the way for extra possibilities for the Turkish capitalism, it also makes the underlying ground more slippery and increases the risks in terms of the system.

A range of objective and subjective reasons lie behind the lack of adequate social/political strength of the communist movement in Turkey in parallel with great revolutionary opportunities, despite the struggle for socialism being highly difficult. The Communist Party of Turkey discusses these reasons during its congresses and conferences, reviews its activities and organizational structure in light of such evaluations, and confronts its own inadequacies and weaknesses. The hitherto limited influence of the communist movement does not arise from the TKP’s principles and program it has insistently protected and will protect, or from any strategic gaps. On the contrary, it will be possible to utilize the revolutionary possibilities in the upcoming period only through the insistence on the hitherto political and ideological direction. In this respect, the TKP will definitely not fall into the trap of relying on the concepts and channels that are offered or imposed as the “way out”.

Unity is one of the concepts that always remain on the agenda of the working class movements in Turkey, and serves the capitalist system at the utmost. A revolutionary strategy requires not only the alliance of those who would contribute to that strategy from different points, but also the unity of the permanent elements of that strategy. Moreover, the unity in different levels, even for short-term goals, could be possible in the case of common goals and instruments. Nevertheless, it is completely a trap to indicate to the “inability of unity” as the reason behind the weakness of Turkey’s revolutionary movement, or more specifically, of the communist movement. Indeed, the remedy of the disease of “shop-keeping” and “small, but mine”, which are often a source of complaint, is not forming artificial unities since they legitimate that disease. Furthermore, such unities in the past led to nothing but splits into smaller parts. The communist movement in Turkey will develop on the basis of an ideological and political consistency and an organizational continuity, of whose address is the TKP.

The real danger of the fetish of unity is to use it as an instrument in an attempt to drag the communist movement under the umbrella of social democracy. It is both inevitable and necessary for the communists in Turkey’s conditions to contact with broad masses that are under the influence of social democracy, and contact with honest and revolutionary elements that are doing politics under social democracy. However, the real goal here is to try to weaken social democracy’s influence over working masses with a sincere and explicit political style without short term opportunistic goals. This has nothing to do with weakening the resistance against the existing political rule. On the contrary, the pro-establishment opposition is one of the elements that strengthens and maintains the existing political rule today. The TKP has no reservation in terms of appreciating every honest stance and struggle in accordance with the interests of the working people. However, it is not the business of the communists to imagine developing a revolutionary strategy by taking shelter in social democracy, whose universal mission is to keep the working masses within the boundaries of the existing social order, which is of no use other than accomplishing this ominous mission in Turkey, too.

The path to Turkey’s revolution will be opened by forming the infrastructure of class positions and alliances starting today, which will be crystallized when the revolution rises. Flexing the class perspective and the class position by considering the narrow social base of the communist movement would only lead to integration with the existing social order. The dynamics of a political structure in terms of socialization and growth always reflect their own original color. Numerous “revolutionary” objects that have negated themselves so as to gain strength compose a pile of tragicomic dirtiness within our proud history.

A revolutionary strategy in Turkey could not also be realized by taking shelter in the bourgeois revolutionary process that was crowned with the foundation of [the Republic in] 1923 which was the unique revolutionary transformation that has been experienced so far in this territory. The fact that the revolutionary breakthrough of Turkey in the 1920s left indelible traces does not mean that the breakthrough in question may determine the direction of a new revolutionary transformation. In this respect, such concepts as secularism and patriotism cannot hold any energy to protect even themselves since they have pro-status quo characteristics as long as they stay out of a revolutionary strategy rooted in the working class and aiming for socialism. The secular and pro-independence sentiments cannot respond adequately to AKP’s interventions, primarily because they act with such reflexes of conserving the existing social order.

Based on the unity of the working people, the communist movement of Turkey should continue to defend common class interests and goals against the divided state of the working class in ethnic, religious, cultural or sectorial terms. This approach particularly makes significant the mission of organizing the Kurdish workers, who have been stuck for years amidst discrimination, imperialist plans, pro-establishment balances and mutual nationalisms, as an indispensable element of Turkey’s working class movement. This mission cannot be accomplished under the shadow of the Kurdish national movement that contains liberal, social-democratic and nationalist tendencies at the same time. The communist movement of Turkey has the experience and capability of breaking the struggle against injustices, discrimination, racism and militarism completely off the bourgeois and imperialist context. In this manner, there is no point in alleging that the left-wing people of Turkey have a historical debt to this or that Kurdish political entity. The communist movement of Turkey is responsible solely before the working people.

In accordance with the requirements of its historical roots and the tasks that will emerge when it is on the rise, Turkey’s revolution will develop also with a ferocious struggle against the imperialist block that is embodied in the NATO alliance. This struggle will rely on the organization of the working people, and it will continue within a broad range from the political sphere to the ideological/cultural one. Furthermore, although this struggle will be waged against imperialism as a whole, it will have a dominant anti-US character in all phases. The communist movement of Turkey cannot trivialize the US imperialism-led historical damage in this region within a general discourse. In addition, it is absolutely imperative not to break the struggle against imperialism and its leading elements off the class context, not to prefer one imperialist country or bloc to the other, moreover, to get alarmed against our country’s hegemonic class’ tendencies to absolve its practices in both domestic and foreign politics. An anti-imperialist struggle cannot be waged by ignoring the Turkish bourgeoisie’s attempts to climb up through the hierarchy of the imperialist system.

The TKP’s assertion to lead the workers and laborers to the social emancipation, to organize and lead them comes from its absolute trust in the fact that Turkey’s working class has enough resources and strength to accomplish this historical mission. Today’s priority is to enable the working class to be visible in political sphere with a revolutionary perspective on the one hand, and to remove the working people from the defensive position they are in and to transform them into an actor that is on the offensive on the other. With the great organizational transformation that it realized in 2018 and the subsequent concrete steps, the Communist Party of Turkey calls on those whose hearts that beat for equality and liberty, as a political party that increases the working class’ resistance during the existing crisis process, establishes a link between this resistance and the goal of socialist revolution, integrates the struggle against the AKP with the goal of changing the social order, promotes an egalitarian, fair, free, independent, sovereign and developed Turkey against the nightmare which our country is going through today under the conditions of capitalism.

The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkey

TKP - THESES ON IMPERIALISM ON THE AXIS OF RUSSIA AND CHINA, 2017

Imperialism is the highest and final stage of capitalism. Imperialism is not an occasional policy, a transitory period or a reversible error of capitalism; it is the capitalism itself in a form ready to be destroyed. Capitalism will not undergo another transformation; it will not proceed to another stage. Capitalism will either be destroyed with a socialist revolution or continue to hold the humanity captive in its imperialist stage. The necessity of transition to socialism in our age should be perceived this way. The age of imperialism is the age of socialist revolutions.

The struggle against imperialism cannot be independent of the struggle against capitalism. Imperialism and capitalism cannot be separated from one another. Imperialism is the concrete, historical form of capitalism. An anti-imperialist struggle that is not anti-capitalist does not serve the interests of the working class.

Imperialism is a hierarchical world system. All capitalist countries are a part of this hierarchy. At a specific historical moment, the positions of particular countries in the imperialist hierarchy are relative. The hierarchy, above all, means a relationship of supremacy and dominance. The elements within the hierarchy cannot be equally decisive on the whole of the system, nor the contradictions among them have to bear the same weigh in the functioning of the current hierarchy or formation of a different one. Therefore, identification of the critical link in a given imperialist hierarchy is of great significance for the clarification of the direction of the struggle. Since the countries at the top of the structure are decisive in the functioning of the imperialist hierarchy, it is of strategic importance for the revolutionary struggle to analyze such hierarchy. Identification of the countries at the top of the hierarchy does not mean to exclude other components of the system and to see imperialism as solely made up of the countries that are in a position to lead and govern the system. Identification of the countries that are at the top of the imperialist system, which in that sense deserve the name imperialist, does not mean to narrow the system down to these countries. To the contrary, the analysis of a functioning where these countries are located at the center or at the top will not only help apprehension of the relationships between countries maintaining different positions in the hierarchy and how other countries are articulated into the system, but also allow setting of clear and concrete goals for the political struggle of the working class in each country and at world level.

Conceptualization of imperialism as a hierarchical world system is one of the most valuable contributions of Lenin to the Marxist theory. For a long time, the concept was used in a narrow sense to define the “imperialistic behaviour” of great powers. With the fact that monopolization became a dominant character of capitalism, the link between the phenomenon of imperialism and capitalist development attracted the attention of some writers; but it was Lenin who built up a robust holistic approach and linked it to the struggle of the working class for revolution.

As Lenin showed almost 100 years ago, imperialism is a hierarchical order where the world market is constantly shared and re-shared. The concrete and historical manifestations of the hierarchy have changed since Lenin put forward the theory of imperialism, and they may also change in the future. This is because concrete and historical hierarchies of imperialism and relative positions of countries within such hierarchies exhibit a very dynamic structure. Nevertheless, this does not mean that capitalism itself may go through another transformation beyond imperialism. Capitalism will not assume any other character than that of imperialism.

Lenin’s intervention elucidated the transformation of capitalism, in its imperialist stage, into a reactionary structure as a whole and in an irreversible manner; the sources of the labor aristocracy that haunted the working class movement in dominant capitalist countries; the political outcomes of the uneven development of capitalism; the link between competition among imperialist countries and wars; the opportunities generated by internal contractions of the imperialist world for the working class movement; the meaning and limitations of national liberation movements developed against imperialism for the world revolutionary process.

The fact imperialism is a world system that involves all countries without exception does not mean that the term “imperialist country” can be used for all the elements of the system. An imperialist country is a country that, in a hierarchical world system at the final stage of capitalist development, has the capacity to influence and guide the economic, political, military, ideological and cultural dynamics of other constituent countries of the structure. The tendency to establish such relations is not equal to the capacity to establish such relations in concrete. It is always the second criterion that is valid to define an imperialist country. Therefore, any question on whether a specific country is imperialist or no should always be answered with a political perspective at the end of a concrete analysis.

Imperialism is not a fact that is observed solely at the economic level, but a multi-dimensional world system that has political, ideological, military and cultural aspects. Thus, imperialist supremacy and domination should be analyzed not only at the economic level but also in consideration of its political, ideological, military and cultural dimensions. In order to take hold of the top of the imperialist hierarchy, it is not enough to establish occasional relations of supremacy in one or several of these spheres. Furthermore, having the potential to establish a relationship of domination in all these spheres will not determine the hierarchy. This is because; materialization of such potential involves not only class struggles in general but also internal contradictions of imperialism and it is a very complex and multi-dimensional process for a country to develop such character in all spheres. In order for identification of an imperialist domination, a concrete relationship should be observed in all these spheres. Such imperative does not exclude the existence of relationships of bidirectional dependency and supremacy, in distinct spheres and at different scales, between the countries in the system. Such relationships do not make a country imperialist per se; but they are inherent in imperialism as a world system and they constitute a structural way of articulation to the system.

In order to understand the functioning of imperialism, it is essential to analyze the relationship between different levels. The natural weight of the economic level should not lead to the rupturing of the dynamic relationship between the economic level and the political, ideological, military and cultural levels. The problem generally does not arise from the omission of any level but from failure to establish correct links between the levels. As long as the economic level is subjected to a solely economic analysis, the political level to a solely political analysis, or the military level to a solely military analysis, it is unavoidable that each sphere leads to a different interpretation of imperialism. Whereas, what is essential is to comprehend how imperialism functions in all these levels in a complete and integrated manner. This is the only possible way to analyze the dynamics of the imperialist hierarchy.

Imperialism is the fact that even the most developed capitalist regions are subject to partition and re-partition struggles and it follows an extremely dynamic line of development determined by class struggles and also depending on the political actions of states. Imperialism cannot be conceived as the supremacy of developed capitalist countries over undeveloped counties. Furthermore, imperialism can by no means be considered as a sole relationship or conflict between the center and the periphery or between developed and undeveloped countries. Just as at the periphery or in undeveloped countries, imperialism has a transformative effect also at the center or in developed countries, and class struggles are decisive in the actions of these countries too. Imperialism is not a one-dimensional, one-route economic process that is only defined and observed at international level but a multi-dimensional fact with ideological, political and military aspects that affects the internal equilibrium of each country. Moreover, any change in the internal equilibrium of each country affects the developments at the international level.

In the functioning of the imperialist system, the competition among the countries at the top of the hierarchy has a decisive significance. Those analyses neglecting the conflicts among imperialists and supposing that these countries act as a homogeneous entity around common interests are far from analyzing the bottlenecks that the system experiences. If one attempts to understand the system, where the countries at the top of the imperialist system try to impose domination on the resources of the countries at the bottom, through bilateral relations between the center carrying out the transformation and the countries resisting the center, not only the contradictions within the countries at the so-called center are underestimated but also the positions of the other countries, which are deemed as objects, in the world capitalist system are desubjectified.

One-sided dependency theories oversimplify the internal hierarchies of the imperialist system and lead to wrong political conclusions as seen in many examples in the past and present of the world communist movement. In a relationship between a country at the top of the imperialist hierarchy and a weaker country, the net transfer of funds is likely to be unilateral and we can talk about a military-political domination in favour of the imperialist country; yet, this does not make the bourgeois class of the weaker capitalist country a victim, nor does it make the same class a potential ally of the working class at any level whatsoever.

The positions in the imperialist hierarchy cannot be used to derive direct conclusions on the historical roles of the countries. The fact that the countries that are not at the top of the hierarchy have limited effects on the system in general does not make their international actions progressive. What matters is the interests of the working class, not that of the countries. The interests of a country gain significance and importance only when they coincide with the interests of the working class.

The hierarchy of imperialism, by nature, is a dynamic structure that tends to change. A transformation in the hierarchy does not in all cases lead to the replacement of the hegemonic element of the system. Even if a transformation in the hierarchy, which is so radical that result in the appearance of a new hegemonic element, may lead to accumulation of revolutionary energy especially in the weaker links of the system, such transformation does not necessarily coincide with the interests of the working class. The transition from an imperialist hierarchy based on British hegemony to the imperialist hierarchy based on US hegemony is an example of such dichotomy.

The US, the leader of the system, has been guiding imperialism for a long time; however, this does not mean that its position is permanent. Theoretically, the competition and contradictions within the system has the potentiality to generate transformations in all instances of the hierarchy, including the top. The functioning of the system does not allow that such transformations spontaneously assume a progressive role. The dynamics shaking the US hegemony do not necessarily trigger any development in favor of the global interests of the working class.

Existence of certain countries challenging the imperialist hierarchy and generating disruptions in the system does not in all cases lead to favorable consequences for the working class struggle. The capitalist nature of these countries acting within the framework of the system should never be forgotten. The focus should be placed on the disruptive effects of the conflicts arising from the nature of the system and the dynamics of crisis arising from challenges to the hierarchy and their effects on class struggles. This is what will move the history forward.

The tendency to ascend in the imperialist hierarchy and thus to turn into an imperialist power is inherent in the system. Capitalist relations of production and, associated with that, political and military dynamics theoretically force each country to move in the hierarchy. The tendency to become an imperialist power is one of the sources of the dynamics of contradictions and crises in the system. As a concrete outcome of such tendency, countries that are not at the top of the hierarchy also take regional or conjunctural imperialist roles within the system. One should never forget that such roles, which sometimes lead to tensions and frictions in the imperialist hierarchy, might function as a tool to clear the way for imperialist centers and that the very same centers might encourage different countries to assume such roles.

One should avoid analyses that, while emphasizing the characteristics of imperialism as a system permeating all over the world and the imperialist roles assumed by each country at a given stage of capitalism, trivialize the imperialist hierarchy itself. The phenomenon of imperialist hegemony, as the fundamental element of imperialist hierarchy, should not be undervalued and the link between anti-imperialist struggles and socialist revolution should not be weakened.

The transformation of capitalism into imperialism means that it has reached an advanced form along with all its internal conflicts and dynamics of crisis. It is clear that there is a non-linear relationship between the transformation processes within the imperialist hierarchy and the capitalist crises, which are getting more and more complicated and internationalized. The critical link that has provided capitalist crises with a more complicated and international dimension is the arrival of financialization and internationalization to its peak with imperialism. Fictive capital is not unique to imperialism; however, massive fictifying of capital is unique to imperialism. In the stage of imperialism, financialization is not simply the management of the system with a multitude of financial instruments; much more critically, it is the ability of monopoly capital to govern the wealth that is not in its own possession. Hence not only the hierarchy of the capital accumulation process is solidified and idle assets are incorporated into the accumulation process, but also the control over social wealth is ensured by a multitude of financial instruments. In the stage of imperialism, the deepening of capitalism always goes hand in hand with the increase of fragility. The line of economic development of the countries that are later incorporated into the system or countries that are gradually strengthening in the system also follows a parallel course. Ours is an age of big crises and also an age of complicated and multidimensional tools that are developed to overcome such crises. The level of maturation of capitalism should not lead to the idea that capitalism is free from crises or it has attained a structure that is capable of overcoming all these crises. Nevertheless, capitalism will be destructed not by crises but the working class who, under the leadership of its party, will take advantage of crises and hit the final blow on the system.

A necessary consequence of the crisis-generating structure of imperialism, which will never be able to get rid of cycles of crisis, is a permanent threat of war. The extent or intensity of the wars is associated with the level of contradictions within the imperialist system. War is not the only way for the destruction of depreciated capital and not every crisis faced within the imperialist system necessarily results in a war. However, in the current stage of capitalism, the threat of war never disappears; imperialism structurally excludes the option of permanent peace.

In the imperialist system, economic interests and political and military interests of a country constitute a totality. It is mistaken to believe that the links between these interests are weak; however, it is also mistaken to claim that one of these interests determine the others in an immediate and direct way. For example, wars or conflicts cannot be considered as independent from countries’ economic interests; yet, nor they are immediate outcomes of the same economic interests. The link between the political and military and the economic should be formulated in line with the logic of general functioning of capitalism. Imperialism is not an arena of struggle between states, determined by intra-system conflicts and competition. The capital’s relationship of exploitation with the labor at national and international level should not be ignored ever. Thus, the class identity and belonging of the state in concern should be placed at the center of the analysis.

Imperialism today still operates through a model where nation-states are articulated with one another in a hierarchical structure. Revision of the forms of articulation of nation-states into the system, curtailing or weakening of internal decision-making processes of countries in favor of the interests of international capital, and even elimination of such mechanisms in particular cases following the dissolution of the Soviet Union do not mean that imperialism does not need nation-states. There is an insolvable tension between the facts that, on the one hand, capital needs nation-states for the sake of its own interests and, on the other hand, its international interests contradict with nation-state mechanisms. Such tension is an indicator of the political crisis of imperialism. The fast course of the European Union towards bankruptcy as an integration project is one of the best examples of this fact.

In the age of imperialism, class struggle is the principle dynamic that moves the history forward. Reduction of this struggle to an inter-state conflict or competition veils the fundamental contradiction between capital and labor, the contradiction whose resolution will change the destiny of humanity. Such a modelling of struggle masks the working class factor with a sort of category of “the oppressed”, which assumes an image of nation or people. Furthermore, it is wrong to claim that monopolies and capitalist classes do not have national identities. Nation-states, which serve the interests of big monopolies, assume the role of clearing the obstacles in front of capital at national and international scale, which is inherent in the logic of functioning of imperialism. Instead of a single global entity, dominant classes need a divided world; thus, using this or that state against the achievements of the proletariat, they are able to compete and to safeguard capital accumulation. The assumption that capital has totally become multinational is a covert attempt to conceal imperialism as a system.

The crisis of imperialism, which has economic, ideological and political aspects, requires a transformation in its current structure and mechanism. Each crisis of capitalism provides the system with an opportunity for restructuring. Whether the ever-deepening crisis of imperialism will result in a restructuring that will relieve the system for a while or a turmoil that will further deepen the crisis will depend not only on the positions of the actors of the system and the strategies of international capital but also on the interventions of the working class and the communist movement from outside the system.

The economic crisis of the imperialist-capitalist system peaked during the crisis of 2007-2008 and became visible. This crisis was not coincidental or was a result of the faulty decision of some of the actors of the system. The system inherently generates such crises. Capitalism can never find radical solutions to the problems of excessive production, decrease in profit rates and contractions in capital accumulation processes.

The ideological crisis of imperialism is manifest in its lack of providing ideas to motivate and inspire the masses for some time. Capitalism beat socialism mainly in the field of ideological struggle and declared the end of history that was written by means of class struggle. After the collapse of socialism, capitalism maintained its dominance over concepts like freedom and democracy and was able to direct people with discourses of globalization and integration. And yet, capitalism has lost ground in the field of ideological struggle.

In relation to economic and ideological problems, imperialism has been undergoing a serious political governing problem. The mechanism in which the US acts as the ultimate decision maker did not function in several cases. Although the position of the US did not change in the imperialist hierarchy, the existence of intimidating actors at the given conjuncture is well admitted by everybody. What secures the position of the US for now is the inability of other actors like the People's Republic of China and Russia to perform self assertively in economic, political, military and cultural spheres holistically and consistently. However, the US is partially under threat in all these fields. Furthermore, the US is getting into a deepening competition with other European states in its system of alliance, like Germany.

Events occurred before and after the US Presidential elections have to be viewed as an indicator and a result of the deep crisis the world capitalist system is going through and as developments that deepen the crisis. The lack of ability of US capitalism to resolve different economic tendencies in national and international level as a complete bloc and the depression caused by different tendencies of capital cause political consequences. Moreover, the decline of US hegemony on capitalism’s ideology generation mechanisms has been observable in both US internal politics as well as the international politics. Thus, US’s military superiority and its traditional political weight in imperialist hierarchy is inadequate for managing the deep crisis US political system is going through.

The decline in resolving and manipulating role of US within the imperialist-capitalist hierarchy have intensified the structural problems of the European Union, deteriorating inputs of Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China to the system had significant effects on the European level and the fastened the dissolution process of European Union. In this dissolution process, with the disintegration of Britain, which had a unique position in the integration scheme since the beginning, the weight of Germany in the old continent is inevitably increasing. This increase in weight intensifies the conflicts between imperialist powers and results in restructuring dependency relationship at European level and for the countries that are in Europe’s sphere of influence. This process, which increases the frictions and tensions between the central nations of Europe and particularly between USA and Germany, becomes more sophisticated due to interventions of Russian Federation. The crisis in Europe, which has a historical weight in the course of class struggle is the herald that shows the existing equilibrium has to change and will change.

The problems created by actors, mainly Russia and the People's Republic of China, that contract the manoeuvring field of the US within the international system is related to the multidimensional crisis of imperialism. Although the integration model and the hierarchical mechanism developed after the collapse of the socialism succeeded in relatively smaller countries, they are insufficient for the stabilization of the positions of Russia, considered as the inheritor of the central country of the real socialism, and the People's Republic of China, which has become a great economic power, within the system. When this insufficiency is coupled with the systematic quest of Russia and the People's Republic of China in the international arena, the existing mechanisms of imperialism failed and the balance was disturbed.

Although whether Russia and the People's Republic of China can be considered imperialist countries depends on a holistic analysis of economic, military and cultural contexts, it is, in the final analysis, a political question. The position both countries occupy within the imperialist system makes it difficult to leave out these countries in the definition of imperialist countries. Furthermore, the instabilities of Russian economy and weaknesses in the financial structure of Russia and China do not change the imperialist character of both countries. The fact that imperialism is a hierarchical world order is decisive and any actor within this system cannot be considered without taking the basic characteristics of the system into account. Although Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China show considerable weaknesses compared to dominant imperialist countries, they are both imperialist countries whose intervention capacities are ever-increasing with their substantial economic potential, powerful monopolies, advanced military potentials and long-established political and diplomatic traditions. The disruptive or balancing positions of both countries against the international interventions of dominant imperialist countries, mainly the US, originate from this fact. In addition to this, such a position buys some time for the internationalist working class movement to organize around an independent direction of struggle. In the present situation, whether Russia and China can be considered imperialist countries depends on the political needs and duties of the communists. The terminological precision pursued hitherto by the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) while using the concept of imperialist country for the US and prominent EU countries, that are still the most dangerous and aggressive ones, cannot last forever.

Russia is part of the imperialist-capitalist system. Therefore, the problems, rivalries and conflicts between Russia and the rest of the countries within this system should be analyzed as internal problems and contradictions of the system. The disruptive position Russia takes on within the system at present does not originate from Russia's becoming an actor of resistance against the imperialist system, but from the problems and new contradictions Russia faces during its integration with the world order in the post-Soviet era.

Among the factors that determine the position of Russia within the system, the political, military and cultural factors outweigh economic ones and Russia still appears to be weaker in terms of economic indicators to be positioned at the top of the imperialist hierarchy. However, Russia has vast opportunities for political and military manoeuvres to subvert the internal balance of the imperialist system depending on factors like its geographical scale, physical infrastructure, particularly its industrial production, its rich natural resources and trained labor force. Moreover, political, military and ideological advantages of Russia have positive effect on its economic conditions. The historically established political and cultural position of Russia in the eyes of the neighboring countries facilitates the imperialist vision of Russia. Putin's Russia does not hesitate to abuse the legacy of Soviet Russia by isolating it from socialism to the same end.

The economy of Russia shows characteristic features of late articulation with the world capitalist system. A powerful capitalist class emerged in Russia through plundering, by means of a model like primitive capital accumulation, the wealth that had been created for social needs throughout the socialist period. Following this immense wave of privatization, the increase of state property through nationalization never meant a re-elimination or restriction of capitalist relations of production. There should be no doubt about the capitalist characteristics of the Russian economy. The increase in the role of the state in economy with Putin's rule in 2000s did not result from economic reasons only, but it also enabled a restructuring of the capital for political and ideological reasons in line with the new national and international route of Russia. As the role of the state ownership increased, some factions of oligarchs were purged and some others were consolidated around Putin's rule. The resources gathered by means of inordinate and unpredictable increase in energy and commodity prices strengthened Putin's rule. In addition to this, state ownership especially in the energy sector in Russia was preferred by the international monopolies since they appreciated it as an assuring and regulating factor compared to the unstable structure of Russia in 1990s.

Russian economy has the capacity to make a breakthrough, as long as it overcomes its limits of capital accumulation, with its industrial infrastructure taken over from the Soviet Union, its being a self-sufficient country in terms of its basic industries together with its natural resource wealth, as well as its being one of the leading countries in petrochemistry exportation, and its advantageous position in high-tech sectors in relation to its advanced industry of defence, aviation and space. Therefore, Russian economy cannot be grasped by means of a simplified model of economy based on natural resource exportation, and especially energy exportation.

Russia has the potential to transform its regional influence into a global economic and political power with its strategic position amid key energy resources of the world economy, its natural wealth and economic structure. This potential of Russia necessitates considering the disruptive influence of Russia over the existing balance within the imperialist system not as a temporal but a structural fact.

There is a weak working class movement in Russia in spite of the developed industrial infrastructure and well-educated and urbanized working class of the country. The liquidation of the organized society inherited from the Soviet Union during the restoration of capitalism had given permanent damage to the working class movement. Putin's rule also systematically creates political, legal and economic obstacles against the organization of the working class, thus the general level of organization among the working class keeps decreasing and organizations alternative to state-controlled unions show slow development. The global crisis of the trade union movement can be clearly observed in Russia. The working class in Russia, that reacted to economic developments and had gains in some cases, is not that powerful to assert itself as a political class. Moreover, the section of the working class besides the industrial workers is more inactive and disorganized.

The political arena in Russia is under the influence of the phenomenon that came to be known as Putinism. The bourgeois opposition in Russia is determined by Putin himself to a large extent. When the general consensus in Russia about Putin’s foreign policy is coupled with Putin’s prowess of making use of this influence in domestic politics, the maneuvering field of the bourgeois opposition in Russia gets narrower. The liberal and pro-Western opposition that object to Putin’s foreign policy moves from a pro-imperialist perspective do not have social support or political influence. Liberalism has no chance to form congruence with industrial workers who have great authority in Russia. Putin’s party United Russia consolidates a certain amount of support and even organized action among the working class, especially in terms of foreign policy. The fact that property ownership in Russia, where the dominance of the state owned sector will proceed for a considerable time, will not change hands provides the objective conditions for the continuity of this support. Working class population has been exposed to an eclectic discourse of nationalism, religious politics, liberalism and consumerism. Putin’s rule even purposefully makes references to the 74 years of history without noting the socialist past. They consciously and systematically make use of an image of the Soviet Union purified of socialism and utilize it to erase the legacy of socialism.

Russia inherited a unique foreign policy tradition established in the socialist period, the powerful and victorious legacy of the Red Army, the advanced infrastructure of the Soviet Union and well-educated labor force trained during the socialist period; and is a country of immense geography, energy resources and economic potential. Even though Russia followed the capitalist path after the dissolution of socialism, it was not transformed into a country that would completely submit to the rules of the game and to the paradigm determined by the dominant imperialist country US, and that would unconditionally abide by the existing hierarchy of the international capitalist system. This integration plan was inapplicable in Russia and that was one of the reasons why the submissive policies of the Yeltsin period reached an impasse due to economic and administrative crises. During the dissolution of the USSR, the objective resistance asserted through the historical legacy of socialism and social structure hindered the liberal plundering program to a certain extent although the politicians of this country submitted to it in a quite dishonorable way. However, it should be remembered that the unchanging wish of Russia during the capitalist restoration period was integration with the imperialist system and there had been no interruption and rupture since 1991. Even though there had been interludes when the restoration went through trouble and policy choices needed to be revised, the Russian administration always sought integration in principle. Russia demands a position within the system convenient to its conditions.

As seen in Ukraine and Georgia cases, Russia acts with a firm determination to respond to social, political and economic change attempts and provocations in ex-Soviet republics, leaving aside the Baltic countries that would challenge its own interests. While Russia intervenes in the integration of these countries to the imperialist system as desired by the US, Putin and the Russian bourgeoisie display a firm will to strengthen Russia's partial military success both in Ukraine and Georgia also in the field of diplomacy.

Russia launched military intervention in Syria by taking advantage of the condition in which the US was never able to break through in Syria, the ISIS factor, the resistance of Syria and Assad’s maintenance of his rule. Russia took the step that would enhance its international influence through a military intervention in a country not bordering Russia, where there are no Russian origin ethnic groups and yet an old ally from the Soviet period. Russia, that took such an active role in the Middle East region for the first time after the USSR period, deepened the internal conflicts of the imperialist world by preventing absolute US control in a country where Russia has the only military base in the Middle East.

Russian intervention in Syria should be evaluated by means of a two-sided analysis. The conflicts in Syria started as the last phase of the extensive intervention by the US and its allies in the region. This intervention can be considered as a universal conspiracy of the important regional actors Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, along with other reactionary Arab regimes. Since the conspirator parties acted on specific strategic plans along with their mutual interests, the operation in Syria not only reached an impasse but also the devastating effect of the operation intensified on a full scale. In this regard, the operation in Syria, which can be considered as part of the attempt of the US and its allies to destroy or split some countries that gained relative autonomy and freedom of action by means of the characteristics of the Soviet period, turned into an area of conflict and rivalry as soon as the operation started. Although these two dynamics cannot be separated from each other, they are not one and the same thing. Yugoslavia was the first and most typical example of the integration of some countries into the system and liberation of capital flows with a more advanced articulation model by the hand of the international capital. Although the intervention in Yugoslavia caused a vehement rivalry between Germany and the US and had the aspect of sieging Russia that was yet on the verge of capitalist transformation, it should be essentially considered as the collective conquest operation of international monopolies.

The mobilization of reactionary fundamentalist gangs of the region in Syria has a counter-revolutionary character. The intensity of ethnic and denominational massacres should not obscure the aim of operations to purge all progressive legacy and public culture, and to annihilate all the gains of the working classes. The communists of the region found themselves in a complicated situation under these difficult circumstances. One of the parties that de facto emerged during the war is clearly an enemy of the communists not only because it aimed to split Syria and make it a target of imperialist plunder, but also because it acted on to deal a fatal blow to the progressive legacy that was already weakened. Although there is no doubt about the class position of the Assad regime, communists can never be at an equal distance to the warring factions in Syria. What happened in Syria was completely an imperialist and reactionary intervention and the communists can never be expected to develop a strategy other than taking an initiative to repel this intervention, turning this process into an advantage for strengthening the independent direction of the working class, and to overthrow the system of exploitation. In consideration of the existing power balances, the termination of this intervention will definitely be a gain for the world revolutionary process and the working class of the region. Maintaining this as a permanent position depends on the revolutionary positioning of the communist movement without ....

In its intervention in the Syrian war, Russia made use of the legitimacy of "responding" to an imperialist intervention and the massacres of counter-revolutionary and Islamist gangs. However, these motives of Russia do not have any other meaning than preserving the economic and political gains of Moscow in its intervention in Syria. The ideological and class characteristics of Putin's rule are in no way compatible with protecting the well being of the peoples of Syria or displaying an ethical conduct in international politics. Therefore, Russia can be said to make a rational choice to protect its own benefit and to attain a new position in the sharpening conflict with the imperialist block led by the US.

Russia clearly displays imperialist motives in its intervention in Syria. Putin's rule follows finely adjusted policies to keep Syria obliged to Russia both in military and diplomatic fields, and lays impositions to Assad about some issues. It is especially striking that some constitutional amendments regarding the liberalization of the country's economy are among these impositions. Finally, Russia makes use of Syria as a means to establish a certain agreement ground with the US. In this regard, the Syria policy of Russia should be considered not only as a hegemonic struggle between Russia and the US, but also as a sign that Russia will not submit to any economic and political siege of the US and other imperialist countries targeting Russia. However, this cautious attitude of Russia is pertinent to current conditions.

Another field where Russia is able to realize its political assertions is Latin America, a geography in which Russia was able to penetrate very close to the US and was able to prove to its rivals that it could follow an effective intercontinental policy of influence as before. The influence of Russia in Latin America has become concrete to a large extent by means of the intense diplomatic efforts for the last two years. However, Russia does not have the capacity to compete with the People's Republic of China in Latin America in terms of economic investments. Although Russia has lost some of the markets to the People's Republic of China, Russia has been primarily selling war technology to the Latin American countries, mainly Venezuela, Peru, Nicaragua, Cuba and Brasilia. Russia is also striving to make military base deals with the Latin American countries. However, it should also be expected that the recent political developments and the intensification of right-wing ideology in the Latin American continent to have results affecting the influence of Russia in the continent. The reaction of the Latin American people to this intensification of right-wing ideology would be decisive despite all the efforts of Russia and the People's Republic of China. If the US-backed provocations and right-wing forces continue to get results in the continent, the US would attain important positions again, though it would not be able to get back to old days.

Russian Federation displayed its ability to interfere with the internal balances of the US in the latest US presidential elections, and openly supported one of the two candidates and assisted in the election of one of them. This intervention, which is a product of the imperialist rivalry, deserves attention since it demonstrates the place of Russia within the imperialist hierarchy.

In the circumstances of political crisis where the international capitalist system is not able to conceive a new governing system for the 21st century and the old one has become dysfunctional, Russia makes use of the gaps of the crisis to widen its zone of influence. However, Russia is not able to undertake an imperialist role as that of the US. The fact that Russia does not undertake an imperialist role and makes use of the principled, rational, consistent and peaceful foreign policy legacy of the Soviet Union creates an illusion of a third way in a world devoid of a socialist camp. The strategic moves of Russia contracts the maneuvering field of imperialism in some cases and this intensifies the aforementioned illusion, increasing the popularity of Putin's Russia among the world communist movement and the world left. As an actor within the system who has an undeniable capitalist quality, Russia has credibility neither to represent the working class in any part of the world nor to be an ally of it.

Russia is obliged to address the oppressed peoples of the world because of its competition with the US. Russia, striving to be the voice of the oppressed against the values represented by the US as the country at the top of the imperialist hierarchy, cannot have ideological consistency due to its place within the imperialist system. Russia assumes tactical positions over the course of the time. Although Russia has no ideological consistency in its discourse basically against the US, such a discourse intensifies the confusion of the world left and progressive public opinion about Russia. The communists cannot position themselves at an equal distance.

Especially when it comes to Russia, the progressive public opinion and the communist movement in the world are not able to solve the tension between not being impartial and being deprived of a political direction, and consolidating the independent route of the working class. They tend to perceive Russia as an ally of the oppressed. As much as it is impossible to establish a revolutionary position by standing at an equal distance to the tensions of the world system, it is ever so impossible to assume a revolutionary mission by supporting any of the political actors. The duty of the communist movement is to make use of the gaps within the system caused by Russia and similar actors to the advantage of the working class and socialist revolution with a political perspective centered on an independent socialist direction.

An important parameter for the future of the international capitalist system and the position of Russia within this system is the course of Russia's relations with the People's Republic of China which acts within the system like Russia in some senses. The importance of the course of this relation would get clearer when it is perceived that the giant economy of the People's Republic of China is the main threat for the unstable position of the US within the imperialist system.

The decollectivisation and marketisation process commenced in 1978 transformed China into a country that can influence and unsettle the internal balances of the imperialist world. The Chinese example results from the relocation of hundreds of millions of peasants to free industrial zones along the coasts and riversides as cheap and irregular labor force, and the attraction of the international capital to the high rates of exploitation. The direct foreign investments that accelerated in 1990s also fueled the rapid capitalist development of the People's Republic of China. The export-oriented growth of the People's Republic of China, and the obvious shifting of the low and mid-technology manufacturing sector to the People's Republic of China by the US and Europe is a product of the role change within the imperialist-capitalist division of labor. Although the role of the state is high in economy, there are more private sectors and thus foreign investment in China than generally considered.

In 2015, the People's Republic of China outscored the US in the gross national product and the rate of contribution to the world production with a high growth rate of 30 years. The Chinese economy uses 20 percent of the whole petroleum and 40 percent of the mines of the world. Under these circumstances, China is required to secure its share in the world market and control raw material flow and thus strengthen its hand in the imperialist competition.

Three quarters of the manufacturing industry capacity of China is export-oriented. Chinese economy faces a great risk of dependency considering that the main market of the People's Republic of China is the developed capitalist countries like the US, Europe and Japan. The greatest advantage of China is its greatest disadvantage at the same time. The growth model depended on domestic market, which suggests an effort of stabilizing declining growth rates due to decelerated demand from the developed capitalist countries, has a range of disadvantages. China tried to compensate the effects of declining foreign demand with grand infrastructure investments after 2008, and yet high debts this step necessitated became an important threat for the Chinese economy. As the foreign demand gets weaker, the conversion of an economy, whose primary mission is to provide low-cost consumer goods flow to developed capitalist countries by means of foreign investment, into a growth model based on domestic demand that would naturally provide increase in wages has great difficulties.

All the steps taken by the People's Republic of China in recent years were against the Chinese working class and to the benefit of the strengthened Chinese bourgeoisie. Reforms contrary to the advantage of the working class, like increase of working hours, have important social and political consequences. The increase in labor demand because of high investment rates cause great migration waves from the rural to the urban places. Rapid proletarianization process, together with precarity, sharpens class distinctions and the Communist Party of China assumes the responsibility of moderating political and social dynamics of this process. Due to the weight of labor-intensive sectors in economy and the rates of low wage/high exploitation, household consumption rates are generally at lower levels and the domestic consumption increases by means of the rapid development of high and mid-level bourgeois sections.

The People's Republic of China seeks after a new position for itself within the world capitalist system with its increasing economic capacity, developing military and political abilities. Economic developments of recent years like the rapid growth, capital export, expansion, and trade deals have the potential to generate consequences that would disturb balances in the middle term. The expansionist policies of China, its capital exportation, deepening relations of exploitation and the quality of its economic relations with the developing countries demonstrate the crucial potential of China within the imperialist system. However, China handles its competition with the dominant imperialist countries with pragmatic tactics and purposefully avoids open conflicts.

As the People's Republic of China pressurizes the existing hierarchy and seeks after a new position for itself, it causes problems in the present functioning of the system. As a country that seems to have assumed cautious steps to accumulate power, China chooses to abide by the rules of the existing hierarchy in its search for a dominant place in the world hierarchy and getting into the markets, and thus demonstrates at every opportunity that it is not an anti-system centre. All the steps of China should be considered in relation the imperialist system; the political and military position of China towards underdeveloped countries as well as its competition with the countries at the top of the imperialist hierarchy should be analyzed within this framework. Even though China creates a gap within the system by unsettling the mechanisms of it, it should not be forgotten that this results from the internal crisis dynamics of the system.

Although China refrains from a direct confrontation with the US except for some strategic issues like the South China Sea, it has taken aggressive steps in the last couple of years to boost its influence in the Middle East, Latin America and especially Africa. It is obvious that competition in these regions, especially in Africa, has got sharp and will get even sharper.

Despite all their differences, both Russia and the People's Republic of China generate a dynamic of unsolvable problem and crisis in the existing balances of the international capitalist system with their existing leadership and capitalist structure. The future of both countries within the system cannot be understood without the future of the international capitalist system is analyzed as a whole. In a world where the socialist camp got out of the equation, the unipolar aggressiveness of the US determined the first years of the 2000s and yet got into a crisis afterwards. This unipolar system, characterized by neoliberal policies and war of aggression that reached its final stage during the Bush period, cannot be sustained as a world system. It expired during the crisis of 2008, and a new and stable structure was unable to be formed due to the deepening political and ideological crisis of imperialism. The place Russia and the People's Republic of China attained in the international arena is sustained by the objectivity of crisis and impasse and thus do not represent a permanent and stable position.

There is no objective ground for an anticipation of an anti-imperialist camp of Russia and China in today's circumstances by looking at the former political polarization when imperialism co-existed with socialism. The co-existence of socialism and capitalism as two camps resulted from the uncompromising contradiction of the two systems. This contradiction was resolved with the dissolution of one of them. In the case of Russia and the People's Republic of China, there is no such uncompromising contradiction. However, this does not mean that Russia and China would compromise with the existing imperialist status quo. The imperialist system inherently contains within itself rivalries and contradictions of the system. The problems caused by Russia and the People's Republic of China result from rivalries within the system and their challenges against the hierarchy of the system. It should not be forgotten that in a world system which does not contain opposing class positions, there can always be changes in alliance systems and compositions different than the existing ones can always be formed.

Today, as the equilibrium of power is being restructured in the world, this process is developing in a framework determined by the internal dynamics of the system, which is different from the previous periods when socialism had a weight as a pole. Working class in the whole world cannot effectively intervene to this process. None of the actors in this process represents the working class. Under these circumstances, the uncertainty regarding the future of the imperialist system is due to internal dynamics of the system and due to preferences of the bourgeoisie. This uncertainty shall not be expected to deepen by itself in a permanent way against the favor of bourgeoisie. The ability to utilize the opportunities created by this uncertainty due to the deep crisis of the imperialist system is in the hands of the world communist movement. Working class is the only power that may create an alternative to the imperialist system.